New York Times earnings drop 82%

[cairns]

Don't you think they'd realize people are tired of reading their biased, overpriced ka-ka??




NEW YORK (AP) - New York Times Co. says its second-quarter earnings fell 82 percent from the year-ago quarter boosted by a one-time gain. Meanwhile, print advertising revenue continued to shrink.
The New York-based newspaper publisher says its quarterly net income dropped to $21.1 million, or 15 cents per share, which included 11 cents per share in buyout costs.

Analysts polled by Thomson Financial expected income of 22 cents per share in the latest quarter. Analyst estimates typically exclude special items.

Revenue dropped 6 percent to $741.9 million, missing the average Wall Street estimate for $754 million. Ad revenue slipped down 11 percent, hurt mostly by fewer classified ads.

Chief Executive Janet Robinson says business was hurt by the "U.S. economic slowdown and secular forces playing out across the media industry."
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,

[Mule]

Great!

[Hugh R]

The LA Times is going to be doing about the same. Yesterday on the front page, bottom left, they had one of their occassional series about illegal aliens. Overall, about 2-1/2 pages about some skank from Kentucky who married an illegal and she now lives in Tijuana and they go on, and on about her tough life, because her hubby can't get a visa or citizenship since he got deported several times. Tell me how that is news?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The L.A. Times lost all journalistic credibility with me a long time ago.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

I hope they go out of business. Republican Hate Talk Radio will have nothing to whine about anymore.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I guess the liberal media outlets are starting to learn the lesson that they can't survive with a base of readers who doesn't actually earn any money.

[dd74]

Ummm...the decline in readership has nothing to do with liberal/conservative bias. It's just that people have found newer, better and most importantly cheaper ways to get their news. Namely the internet. Why pay $40+ bucks a month for the L.A. Times when you can get better, more up to date news off L.A. Times online? And do so anonymously...

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by dd74

Ummm...the decline in readership has nothing to do with liberal/conservative bias. It's just that people have found newer, better and most importantly cheaper ways to get their news. Namely the internet. Why pay $40+ bucks a month for the L.A. Times when you can get better, more up to date news off L.A. Times online? And do so anonymously...

Exactly. Nearly every single paper based newspaper is floundering because of this. The "internet age" has ruined newspapers, libraries, bookstores, etc. Why do you think that what used to be respectable papers now have to fill half of their pages with advertisements? Because people like me, the ones that still like to fold a sheet of newsprint and read it over a cup of coffee are not common enough anymore to fund them.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by dd74

Ummm...the decline in readership has nothing to do with liberal/conservative bias. It's just that people have found newer, better and most importantly cheaper ways to get their news. Namely the internet. Why pay $40+ bucks a month for the L.A. Times when you can get better, more up to date news off L.A. Times online? And do so anonymously...

I disagree entirely. The NY Times circulation base is almost entirely comprised of welfare recipients and subscriptions were subsidized by the U.S. government. That program was killed last year (unmarked palettes of cash were sent to Iraq instead), hence the 82% drop in earnings.

[Rick Lee]

I never knew poor folks could afford a subscription to the NYT. I know it's cheaper in NY and NJ than elsewhere, but it's pretty expensive.

Shaun, please tell me where I can pick up some Republican Hate radio. I've always wondered where this was, but have not been able to find it.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I never knew poor folks could afford a subscription to the NYT. I know it's cheaper in NY and NJ than elsewhere, but it's pretty expensive.

Shaun, please tell me where I can pick up some Republican Hate radio. I've always wondered where this was, but have not been able to find it.

Rick, Republican Hate Talk Radio is everywhere! these guys and gals would be nowhere, have nothing, if it weren't for other media. All they do is whine and complain about what is in other media sources. that's it. no investigative journalism, no fact-finding, no independent verification of innuendo. They simply take what's in other media forms and exploit it, whining and complaining about the media source itself as well as the story.

Whiners and leeches.

[john70t]

The federal mint is buying up all the paper pulp for printing dollars.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I never knew poor folks could afford a subscription to the NYT. I know it's cheaper in NY and NJ than elsewhere, but it's pretty expensive.

Yes, it is. Last I checked, the NYT is $600 a year out here on the West Coast.

[cairns]

While I don't have any hard statisics the Washington Post asked readers just a few weeks ago what they could do to improve their paper. The overwhelming response was Stop the Bias. Second was report on actual news (not what you think is news). More than a few readers said they were cancelling subscriptions because of this.

I can get plenty of news off the internet. Yet I'm still subscribed to the Washington Post, the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. I used to read the Post first every morning- not any more. You can only take so much "Why they're attacking Michelle Obama" as front page news.

I'm sure the internet hurts them and I'm sure the economy has too but IMO the major papers have lost their credibility- and that can't be good for business. If the Post, LA Times and NYT are losing money and circulation maybe some of you lefties can tell me why the Wall Street Journal is gaining circulation and turning big profits???

[cairns]

"Rick, Republican Hate Talk Radio is everywhere!"

I think Rick was asking specifically where it is. I'd like to know too as I've never heard it.

[JayG]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

I guess the liberal media outlets are starting to learn the lesson that they can't survive with a base of readers who doesn't actually earn any money.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Rick, Republican Hate Talk Radio is everywhere! these guys and gals would be nowhere, have nothing, if it weren't for other media. All they do is whine and complain about what is in other media sources. that's it. no investigative journalism, no fact-finding, no independent verification of innuendo. They simply take what's in other media forms and exploit it, whining and complaining about the media source itself as well as the story.

Whiners and leeches.

I think you're confusing radio talk shows with journalism and they have little to do with each other. If the mainstream media in the U.S. were even close to balanced, then talk radio would have a lot less material to whine about. Talk radio is not news, never has been and has never claimed to be such. That they usually draw much larger audiences than newscasts is a whole different matter.

Anyway, I'm dying to hear some hate radio. Please tell me where I can find it. Or save me the trouble and just tell me what it is.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

I disagree entirely. The NY Times circulation base is almost entirely comprised of welfare recipients and subscriptions were subsidized by the U.S. government. That program was killed last year (unmarked palettes of cash were sent to Iraq instead), hence the 82% drop in earnings.

Per the quote from the NY Times itself: Chief Executive Janet Robinson says business was hurt by the "U.S. economic slowdown and secular forces playing out across the media industry."

"Secular forces" does not tell me the NYT 82% slip is due to a cut welfare program because of Iraq or "conservatism" in gov't. Secular forces suggest non-traditional/non-print outlets foreign to the media industry - i.e. outlets like the internet.

Secondly, if the lion's share of NYT readers are welfare recipients, why are advertisers like Barney's, Rolex, and other high-end brands paying enormous ad fees to appear in a paper whose readers can't afford their product?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by JayG

Glad SOMEONE got that.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by cairns

While I don't have any hard statisics the Washington Post asked readers just a few weeks ago what they could do to improve their paper. The overwhelming response was Stop the Bias. Second was report on actual news (not what you think is news). More than a few readers said they were cancelling subscriptions because of this.

I can get plenty of news off the internet. Yet I'm still subscribed to the Washington Post, the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. I used to read the Post first every morning- not any more. You can only take so much "Why they're attacking Michelle Obama" as front page news.

I'm sure the internet hurts them and I'm sure the economy has too but IMO the major papers have lost their credibility- and that can't be good for business. If the Post, LA Times and NYT are losing money and circulation maybe some of you lefties can tell me why the Wall Street Journal is gaining circulation and turning big profits???

Biased media outlets tend to attract those who agree with their bias. I.E., talk radio, Fox News, papers. The bias (if any that a paper claims as its own) has already been worked into the outlet with the core readership. Cost of purchase or subscription has/will always overshadow the potential for bias. The new generation of news followers have long-since known the better deal for their information comes from the internet. They won't subscribe to a conservative paper just because they too are conservatives. Same with liberal readers.

As for the NYT or LA Times, conservative readers have left those papers decades ago.